New at Reason

|7.11.06 @ 4:02PM|#

I want to side with Nick, but, they're selling the edited works for profit. I could understand if they weren't making any money on the deal, but, the idea of purchasing a movie, book, album, etc., editing it to achieve a certain end, and reselling the item (even if all editing has been disclosed) for a profit sounds like it could have a seriously slippery slope.

Nick's reasoning, wherein "they are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume", would also act as justification if I took The Terminator, combined it with Driving Miss Daisy mashup-style, and edited the thing so it was 'Driving Miss Connor', then sold it for profit. Aren't I just stealing their work, cutting it up, pasting it back together in my own way, then making money off of it? So, how is that any different from plaigarism? Should we also legalize plaigarism, Nick?

|7.11.06 @ 4:06PM|#

I want to side with Nick, but, they're selling the edited works for profit. I could understand if they weren't making any money on the deal, but, the idea of purchasing a movie, book, album, etc., editing it to achieve a certain end, and reselling the item (even if all editing has been disclosed) for a profit sounds like it could have a seriously slippery slope.

Nick's reasoning, wherein "they are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume", would also act as justification if I took The Terminator, combined it with Driving Miss Daisy mashup-style, and edited the thing so it was 'Driving Miss Connor', then sold it for profit. Aren't I just stealing their work, cutting it up, pasting it back together in my own way, then making money off of it? So, how is that any different from plaigarism? Should we also legalize plaigarism, Nick?

|7.11.06 @ 4:39PM|#

I want to side with Nick, but, they're selling the edited works for profit. I could understand if they weren't making any money on the deal, but, the idea of purchasing a movie, book, album, etc., editing it to achieve a certain end, and reselling the item (even if all editing has been disclosed) for a profit sounds like it could have a seriously slippery slope.

Nick's reasoning, wherein "they are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume", would also act as justification if I took The Terminator, combined it with Driving Miss Daisy mashup-style, and edited the thing so it was 'Driving Miss Connor', then sold it for profit. Aren't I just stealing their work, cutting it up, pasting it back together in my own way, then making money off of it? So, how is that any different from plaigarism? Should we also legalize plaigarism, Nick?

|7.11.06 @ 5:14PM|#

I'd like to point out that this lawsuit didn't involve Clearplay. Clearplay offers filters for movies: you get a movie with all the naughty bits, you get the appropriate filter for that movie from Clearplay, install into your DVD player and can watch the movie with the bad stuff left out. This, according to Hollywood, is normal.

Consider what copyright is ultimatelly about: it's about the rights to copy and distribute a work of art. Clearplay doesn't copy movies: it allows the end customer to alter their viewing experience. Companies named in the lawsuit, however, did copy movies. Hollywood studios shouldn't have to give a reason why they don't want a certain company to distribute their products; they own the copyrights, and should be able to prevent anybody from reselling their movies. In this sense, Hoolywood studios not only exercised their rights, but they were smart enough to leave a viable alternative, which does not violate their copyrights and gives the end customer the freedom to alter the movies, unchallenged.

|7.11.06 @ 5:14PM|#

I'd like to point out that this lawsuit didn't involve Clearplay. Clearplay offers filters for movies: you get a movie with all the naughty bits, you get the appropriate filter for that movie from Clearplay, install into your DVD player and can watch the movie with the bad stuff left out. This, according to Hollywood, is normal.

Consider what copyright is ultimatelly about: it's about the rights to copy and distribute a work of art. Clearplay doesn't copy movies: it allows the end customer to alter their viewing experience. Companies named in the lawsuit, however, did copy movies. Hollywood studios shouldn't have to give a reason why they don't want a certain company to distribute their products; they own the copyrights, and should be able to prevent anybody from reselling their movies. In this sense, Hoolywood studios not only exercised their rights, but they were smart enough to leave a viable alternative, which does not violate their copyrights and gives the end customer the freedom to alter the movies, unchallenged.

|7.11.06 @ 5:22PM|#

Evan!,

This isn't anything like plagiarism; these companies do not present the DVDs as being their own work. In fact, doing so would undermine their business plan completely; their customers don't want to see "Titanic: A Clean Flicks production", they want to see James Cameron's Titanic minus the naughty bits.

Also, retailers buy DVDs and sell them unaltered for profit all the time; why would it be wrong for a company to do so if they're adding value to the product?

|7.11.06 @ 5:23PM|#

They'll have to pry my de-ewoked (dewoked?) copy of ROTJ from my cold, dead, fingers.

R C Dean|7.11.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Is there some subtle joke going on here? That in a thread about copying "works of art" every post appears at least two or three times?

I want to side with Nick, but, they're selling the edited works for profit. I could understand if they weren't making any money on the deal,

Makes zero difference under copyright law whether you are selling your copies for profit, selling them for a loss, or charging for them at all.

What matters is whether you have and are complying with a license to copy/distribute.

Timothy|7.11.06 @ 5:30PM|#

the whole selling point of CleanFlicks' Titanic is that it spared audiences the original movie's brief moment of full-frontal Winslet.

More like deprived. That was one of the few interesting things in the film.

|7.11.06 @ 5:30PM|#

"...the whole selling point of CleanFlicks' Titanic is that it spared audiences the original movie's brief moment of full-frontal Winslet."

Was that in the director's cut? I'm pretty sure all I saw was some titties, since that's the only part of that film I ever paid attention to.

[In the spirit of accuracy, I will consult the films "Holy Smoke" and "Jude".]

|7.11.06 @ 5:33PM|#

They can have Kate Winslet's breasts when they pry them from my ... oh, never mind.

|7.11.06 @ 5:33PM|#

I don't know all that much about copyright, but Nick does say...

"By all accounts, the CleanFlicks-type outfits weren't ripping off Hollywood in any way, shape, or form�they were paying full fees for content"

From this I infer that they have purchased the right to resell the changed artistic work. I also don't know how hollywood works, but I am guessing that the original producers/directors signed away some of the future creative rights to their projects in their contracts.

If particular directors/producers/actors never want the original vision of their work changed, they are free to never sell the rights to their works.

I work as a programmer/analyst for a finance company and a lot of my work is somewhat creative (building algorithims to evaluate and create trading strategies), however since my contract stipulates that the IP I produce is the property of the firm. If I ever leave they are free to ruin my terrific code, and there is nothing I could do about it.

M. Simon|7.11.06 @ 5:37PM|#

It is about the money.

|7.11.06 @ 5:46PM|#

From this I infer that they have purchased the right to resell the changed artistic work. I also don't know how hollywood works, but I am guessing that the original producers/directors signed away some of the future creative rights to their projects in their contracts.

If this were true, how would the distributors have a leg to stand on legally?

Also, retailers buy DVDs and sell them unaltered for profit all the time; why would it be wrong for a company to do so if they're adding value to the product?

How do you define what is "value" for a work of art? So, if Clean Flicks reworked Schindlers List so that it took out the violent parts, and the result made more money, would you consider the clean version to have a higher value?

|7.11.06 @ 5:49PM|#

Nick,

What about people repurposing pages from www.reason.com, e.g. downloading, removing portions and then putting the rest up on their own site?

In my hypothetical situation, the "repurposing" site hits www.reason.com exactly once for each time one of it's customers hits it. The repurposing site makes it explicitly clear that www.reason.com exists and is the originator of the content and that the repurposing site has no original content at all.

That seems like a fairly good analog to buying a DVD, removing parts, keeping the original DVD in escrow (or destroying it) and selling a new version with parts missing. For every edited DVD sold there's a non-edited DVD purchased. For every edited web page presented, there's a non-edited web page downloaded.

Would it matter if the editing was to remove ads? Would it matter if the repurposing site supported itself by selling ads?

|7.11.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Makes zero difference under copyright law whether you are selling your copies for profit, selling them for a loss, or charging for them at all.

CleanFlix was claiming fair use, so the nature of the work (commercial or non-profit) is a relevant inquiry.

|7.11.06 @ 5:51PM|#

allowed listeners to easily de-bundle albums forced on them by artists and record labels

Wow, Nick, way to bring the level of discourse closer to that shark's fin. I always thought that as libertarians we despised people who incorrectly used the word "force" to make some ideological point. Apparently, you're not above sophistic games.

I can't believe I missed all those guns to my head forcing me to buy those terrible bundled albums...what a victim I am...

|7.11.06 @ 5:59PM|#

Greg,

I am also not a lawyer (although my fiancee has tried to explain copyright to me several times, while I zoned out). What I was trying to say was that if CleanFlix purchased the right to modify and re-sell the IP in question (Kate Winslet's breasts) from the current owner of the IP, I don't have any problem with that.

If they didn't purchase the right explicitly, but are using some other legal argument, I have no idea whether what they did was legal or even fair.

Similarily if someone want to pay Reason X$ dollars for the right to alter and re-print the magazine, and the editors/owners agree. I also imagine that would be fine.

|7.11.06 @ 6:05PM|#

So, if Clean Flicks reworked Schindlers List so that it took out the violent parts, and the result made more money, would you consider the clean version to have a higher value?

Obviously the people who paid extra for the clean version think so, seeing as how they bought it when the original was available for a lower price. And yes, I'm referring to purely economic value, as artistic value would be darn near impossible to compare objectively.

|7.11.06 @ 6:10PM|#

Basically they are creating something like a derivative work, and the copright holder has control over such things. It really doesn't matter whether the copright holder is compensated or not under such situations; a violation has still occurred.

|7.11.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Last I checked, its legal to sell used movies and music. Why would it be illegal to sell used movies that have been altered?

Also, if parody is allowed as fair use, as in Weird Al's famous works, why isn't alteration for the purpose of making a movie more family friendly fair use? Makes no sense.

I wonder what the public interest is in prohibiting this. As long as its clearly labeled as altered, there won't be any customer confusion. An artist doesn't have the right to prohibit users from altering his or her product.

|7.11.06 @ 6:12PM|#

Is that true even if the copyright holder explicitly grants permission? That would seem to be an odd result of the law, no one can ever create a derivative work. Was "Spaceballs", obviously derived from Star Wars an illegal production?

|7.11.06 @ 6:22PM|#

lannychiu,

Of course a copyright holder can grant permission for the creation of a derivative work.

|7.11.06 @ 6:26PM|#

So if it is the case that CleanFlix pays for the right to alter and re-sell Titanic (which implies the current copyright holder grants permission), then there wouldn't seem to be any illegality or unfairness in what they were doing. Or am I missing something.

|7.11.06 @ 6:34PM|#

So if it is the case that CleanFlix pays for the right to alter and re-sell Titanic (which implies the current copyright holder grants permission), then there wouldn't seem to be any illegality or unfairness in what they were doing.

I'm pretty sure Clean Flix never got permission from the studios to sell altered versions of the DVDs, so while that point is true, it is nonetheless irrelevant.

|7.11.06 @ 6:38PM|#

Also, retailers buy DVDs and sell them unaltered for profit all the time; why would it be wrong for a company to do so if they're adding value to the product?

I dont understand your point here. Because it is ok for retailers to sell unaltered works, why would it be wrong to sell altered works, simply because they add economic value? You admitted that economic value can be added even if the artistic value is destroyed(I would say Schindlers List is a very excellent example). Altering Schindlers List so that the artists vision is destroyed and reselling it for a profit seems an awful lot like plagarism to me.

|7.11.06 @ 6:43PM|#

Crimethink,

Ahh, I misunderstood. So what doctrine determines what is "Fair Use", I am a legal neophyte.

|7.11.06 @ 6:47PM|#

"Also, if parody is allowed as fair use, as in Weird Al's famous works, why isn't alteration for the purpose of making a movie more family friendly fair use? Makes no sense."

Courts have explained that parody is considered a First Amendment exception to the copyright laws because (a) it involves some original transformative work in addition to the copied material, (b) it is consider a historically important form of criticism, and (c) it is not a substitute for the original product (i.e., it is presumed that no one buys a parody instead of buying the original).

The cleaned up films here apparently (a) do not contain original work (they merely delete material from the film), (b) are arguably not intended as a form of criticism (and certainly not in the same mode as parody in any event), and (c) are explicitly sold as a substitute for the original.

|7.11.06 @ 7:02PM|#

Altering Schindlers List so that the artists vision is destroyed and reselling it for a profit seems an awful lot like plagarism to me.

Do you know what plagiarism is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Plagiarism

|7.11.06 @ 7:09PM|#

The cleaned up films here apparently ... are explicitly sold as a substitute for the original.

That's not really true, if CleanFlix buys an original DVD for every cleaned-up version they sell. By buying an altered DVD from CleanFlix, the consumer causes an unaltered DVD to be bought from the distributor. It's a case of adding value to a product, not substituting for it.

In any case, it would probably be better for CleanFlix to alter its business model in the way I proposed before, by providing the bowdlerization as an after-market service on an already-purchased DVD.

Gene Berkman|7.11.06 @ 7:19PM|#

Too bad this decision came too late to save "This Island Earth" from the butchers at Mystery Science Theater 3000.

|7.11.06 @ 7:25PM|#

Nick's reasoning, wherein "they are doing precisely what technology is there for: to create the sort of art, music, video, and text that an individual or group of individuals wants to consume", would also act as justification if I took The Terminator, combined it with Driving Miss Daisy mashup-style, and edited the thing so it was 'Driving Miss Connor', then sold it for profit. Aren't I just stealing their work, cutting it up, pasting it back together in my own way, then making money off of it? So, how is that any different from plaigarism? Should we also legalize plaigarism, Nick?

To an extent, yes. Consider that many classical compositions of the 19th century are variations on earlier works by other composers. Likewise, when working with simpler forms of music such as rock or folk, the limitations of the form makes it almost impossible to create something entirely original that isn't a derivitive of something else.

The object of patents and copyrights is to "promote the useful arts and sciences", not to create perpetual monopolies of intelectual property.

|7.11.06 @ 7:26PM|#

Gene Berkman,

MST3K purchased full rights to all movies they "did". So this ruling would not affect them.

Furthermore, now you must be slain by Tom Servo's hoverskirt for daring to blaspheme MST3K.

|7.11.06 @ 7:37PM|#

"That's not really true, if CleanFlix buys an original DVD for every cleaned-up version they sell."

True, but I was merely explaining why the parody exception isn't relevant to this case.

Warren|7.11.06 @ 7:39PM|#

Thank you Nick {Big kiss of support of the completely non-homosexual variety, NTTAWWT}

I look forward to the day Reason runs a cover story calling for the end of copyright. Of course, nothing in this article is incompatible with the recognition of intellectual property, "they were paying full fees for content". Still IP law has gotten way out of hand, (so much so that I think we should scrap it � well, most of it anyway), so I'm glad to read an article proposing that we at least back up a bit. And this is not the first time Reason staked out this ground. Keep up the good fight.

|7.11.06 @ 8:39PM|#

"That's not really true, if CleanFlix buys an original DVD for every cleaned-up version they sell."

That is what I was assuming. I thought they just bought the DVDs off the shelf, altered them, and then resold them. The resale of purchase product combined with the copyright exceptions for fair use ought to allow this practice. Also, re-editing of a movie according to some artistic vision would be a type of transformation, whether it be to rewrite return of the jedi without the distracting ewoks or the titanic without immoral boobies.

I looked quite a bit and haven't found the opinion. Bashman didn't even have it. Having that might enlighten this discussion slightly. I'm not familiar enough with the copyright code to know whether there is some clear statutory basis for the ruling, or if it depends on the judge's view of the purposes and history of copyright law.

|7.11.06 @ 8:43PM|#

"I look forward to the day Reason runs a cover story calling for the end of copyright."

That wouldn't be a good idea. Returning it to its original purpose of incentivizing creation of artistic works would be a good idea. Copyright should exist where it promotes artistic creation. The movie industry would spend much less on movies without copyright, and we'd be stuck watching Blair Witch rip-offs instead of Lord of the Rings and Spiderman. But I doubt musicians would spend less time writing music without copyright.

|7.11.06 @ 8:57PM|#

Req,

Well, rolling back the duration of copyrights to the original 20 years might help...a 100 year copyright is far more than would be necessary to promote advances in the arts.

What ever happened to that lawsuit claiming that it was unconstitutional for Congress to keep extending copyrights to longer and longer terms, since the Constitution specifies that copyrights are to be valid for "limited periods"?

|7.11.06 @ 9:11PM|#

crimethink,

If you paid attention to Supreme Court rulings you would realize that the party who brought the case lost.

Reg,

Returning it to its original purpose of incentivizing creation of artistic works would be a good idea.

That was never wholely its original purpose (indeed, in "Merry Ole England" copyright started out as a way to censor texts and grant monopoly publishing rights to certain favored parties).

____________________________

I am an advocate, at least in part, of the "moral rights" perspective of copyright law; the utilitarian approach has its merits, but it ultimately does not protect to creator of the work in some important ways.

|7.11.06 @ 9:41PM|#

If you paid attention to Supreme Court rulings you would realize that the party who brought the case lost.

And lost by a pretty significant margin -- 7-2, if I recall.

But then, the folks on the Supreme Court are really the last people I'd be asking about the Consitution these days.

*sigh*

|7.11.06 @ 9:51PM|#

That was never wholely its original purpose

That is the purpose given in the Constitution (A1S8):

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

|7.11.06 @ 9:52PM|#

Anyway, the right to make derivative works is exclusive to the copyright holdier, and may not be infringed by another party. None of the exceptions to the exclusive rights granted by copyright fit the case at hand.

|7.11.06 @ 9:56PM|#

crimethink,

Actually, a moral rights theory can fit neatly within the confines of that statement (and the historical evidence does demonstrate that there was some concern for such at the time). Further, I don't see how granting exclusive rights in derivative works conflicts with the stated purpose of that language.

|7.11.06 @ 9:58PM|#

Funny, one minute people are on here talking about how great peer-to-peer illegal file sharing is and the next are bemoaning the loss of creativity in Hollywood and Big Music.

Hmmm, correlation, meet causation.

What incentive is there to create something new and original when, within one week, there are illegal DVDs of it on the streets and it's all over LimeWire or BitTorrent?

Libertarians are supposed to be pro-private property (except, apparently, when it comes to stuff that's easy to Xerox, burn, rip or download).

|7.11.06 @ 10:03PM|#

Ayn Randian,

We live in a world overflowing with media choices, yet some people apparently feel the need to alter the creative works of others in order to shield themselves from naughty words, etc.

|7.11.06 @ 10:08PM|#

Ayn_Randian,

OK, what does that have to do with the case at hand? The studios are making money off of these cleaned-up edits.

|7.11.06 @ 10:38PM|#

Ok, I may have strayed, but my point is that copyright is and always will be exceptionally relevant to cases like these, and I guess the anti-copyright vibe I get from Reason lately has just sent me into a tizzy. My original post about Gillespie using force in an exceptionally non-libertarian manner has also gone unanswered, and I am bothered on that end because instead of making a principled argument, he framed the case about Napster and the like fighting those big, bad studios instead of just happening to mention that people were regularly (and continue to) commit(ting) felonies instead of paying for something they want!

|7.11.06 @ 10:51PM|#

crimethink,

The studios are making money off of these cleaned-up edits.

Maybe I should rent out your house without your permission; after all, I'd make sure you'd be making money.

|7.11.06 @ 11:27PM|#

PhilLip,

Go for it. Make sure they're not afraid of cockroaches and Midnight Mass.

|7.11.06 @ 11:32PM|#

crimethink,

I'll be sure to rent it out to Wiccans. :)

|7.12.06 @ 12:02AM|#

Just to throw out the Rothbardian perspective, :)

Copyright, like patents of monopoly and trademarks are government granted monopolies, and should not be treated as property.

The gist of the argument, and this is not intended to be comprehensive-that would require a long essay, is that property consists of items which may only be controlled by a person or groups of people, for example a rock. An idea, wont the other hand, is really a pattern. If one person copies another person's idea, the first person is in no way deprived of the information.

So, if I were to point a gun at my neighbor and threaten him with violence if he built a plow that looked like mine, it is by definition aggressive and immoral.

Now, it is possible to have somthing like copyrights and trademarks that are moral; let us say that I write some great book, and wish to control its distribution. I could demand that everyone who purchases one of my books has to sign a contract stating that they will a) not copy the book, and b) not sell it to anyone who does not accept the contract. Then I could whold liable the guy who violates the contract and redistributes my awesome story far and wide.

Similarly, there is a complicated scheme by which trademarks could also be implemented in an an-cap framework without aggression (although in the interests of time I won't try to create it here).

Now, pretty much every self-described libertarian who believes patents and copyrights etc should be imposed that I know of has argued so on utilitarian grounds; namely that they promote the development of inventions and the creation of written works and facilitate trade.

Now, I am not swayed by utilitarian arguments, because I am a radical moralist.

I do concede that trademarks do serve a useful purpose, and do tend to evolve even without police enforcement. Certainly the state enforcement of them bothers me about as much as the police arresting a murderer. I think what makes them least bothersome, in my mind, is that the owner must register the trademark publicly, much as one would if one was registering with a branding service in an ancap economy. The only objection I have is the standard one - that a monopoly on judicial services leaves one with no recourse when it behaves corruptly.

Copyrights, on the other hand, are a very different matter. The days when someone had to actively register a copyright are long behind us. So, a person will not know whether or not producing some work will have broken the "law" until after they have done it. The confusion is definitely to the benefit of existing producers of entertainment like Disney, over upstart would be competitors like myself. Again, they also suffer from the problem that there is a single, corruptable, judicial monopoly administering disputes. Additionally, the lack of contracts really bothers me. It's like buying a can of shaving foam and discovering that using it to write "Just Married" on a friend's car is a misdemeanor should the manufacturer (but not the friend) complain.

Of course, patents are the least defensible of the three. There is ample evidence that they actually retard innovation, certainly they slowed the adoption of steam engines, automobiles by decades, and I think it is quite instructive that the aircraft manufacturer who didn't seek patent protection for his inventions (Curtis) bought out the one who did (Orville Wright's company). I cannot see patents of monopoly existing in any free society, because by definition they require aggression against someone else.

The point I want the readers to take from this comment is that it is possible to be a strong advocate of property rights and not accept the existence of intellectual property rights. Rather, to be a consistent advocate of property rights requires one to speak out against the notion that ideas or patterns can somehow be owned as opposed to the physical object upon which they are expressed.

It would be far better if the Studios required everyone purchasing their movies to sign a contract agreeing not to modify or redistribute their works. Then the whole matter rapidly becomes one of contractual obligations. Under such a scheme the redistributors could not modify a movie if the director objected, and, by the same token, people would not be deprived access to movies whose makers didn't care.

|7.12.06 @ 12:10AM|#

...is that property consists of items which may only be controlled by a person or groups of people, for example a rock.

The standard response to such a notion is a Hobbesian one. In both the case of copyrights and real property rights control is predicated on a government vindicating the rights of the property owners.

|7.12.06 @ 12:21AM|#

tarran,

Oh, when you buy a movie, there is an agreement between you and the creator of that product - which is why those warnings on the product box itself as well as at the start of the movie, etc. are so prominent.

|7.12.06 @ 12:33AM|#

You do not need a government for property rights to exist. You just need widespread acceptance of the system of property rights.

Otherwise, Philadelphia would have been a wilderness when Ben Franklin decided to flee Boston as an economic refugee, since for the first few decades of the Pennsylvania colony it had no functioning government (it officially had one, but people kept either ignoring it or laughing at it). You will note that during that period it was the fastest growing colony in the New World, implying that the people moving there weren't too concerned that they would not benefit from the production and farming they planned on doing there.

Again, there is no moral conflict over a pattern or information, since it is in no way scarce. At their heart any theory of property rights is an attempt to assign exclusivity of control over something wherein the potential for conflict exists. If I write "Cogito Ergo Sum" it in now way deprives you of those words in that order, hence there is no need to develop a system to morally assign exclusivity of control over that sequence of words. Thus, they fall outside the purview of a property rights system.

|7.12.06 @ 12:37AM|#

What about things like graded readers or classic comics? Even though the original writer might be long dead and no longer have a controlling interest in the work those works are modified in ways the original writer did not conceive of, or may have granted if he knew about this possibility.

|7.12.06 @ 12:47AM|#

You know, PL,

I've just looked at a couple of my movies, and not a single one has any restrictions on use printed on the outside of the box.

They do all have a copyright notice though, stating who owns the copyright and what year they established it. I don't think that amounts to a contract wherein I am agreeing to certain restrictions. That little symbol in no way replaces a contract, wherein the parties can read the instrument. Additionally, if the government changes the definition of what the symbol means by revising the law, doesn't that leave one of the two parties injured? After all what sort of contract allows a third party to unilaterally modify it?

I am unconvinced.

|7.12.06 @ 1:12AM|#

tarran,

You do not need a government for property rights to exist. You just need widespread acceptance of the system of property rights.

Hobbes would agree with this, then he'd tell you that any such system is unstable and prone to collapse.

As to your claims regarding Pennsylvania (for now I'll accept then as accurate), why then did it create a government?

As to what mvi say on their boxes, I just picked up The Fog Of War and it states the quite clearly that unauthorized reproduction, etc. is against the law.

That little symbol in no way replaces a contract, wherein the parties can read the instrument.

Then you aren't very familiar with contrac law. Article 2 of the UCC specifically allows for all manner of contracts where all the parties do pass POs and the like between each other; in other words, there is no single instrument that the parties read and much of what happens in the transaction is based on industry custom, etc. Hell, given your archaic, 17th century notion of a contract most of the buying and selling of goods and the like would grind to a halt.

|7.12.06 @ 1:19AM|#

My wireless keyboard is on the fritz apparently.

|7.12.06 @ 1:54AM|#

PL,

I am enjoying our conversation, but I must go to bed, so I will be perforce very brief:

"As to your claims regarding Pennsylvania (for now I'll accept then as accurate), why then did it create a government?"

I believe that it was a reaction to the French Indian War. Essentially it was an actual case of a government being created specifically to force freeriders to pay for defensive services. Essentially, the Quakers refused to pay for and participate in defending against attacks by Indians fighting for the French. The non-Quaker members of the colony got tired of doing all the fighting and supported the English Crown in imposing a colonial government.

All the movies I have on hand are actually marketed by A&E under license to various British production houses. Perhaps that creates a sampling bias.

Ahem, the UCC defines a the formation of a contact thus
"(1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.
(2) An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined.

(3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy."

I disagree with your claim that I am imposing some archaic version of contract law; if a mark is used ot indicate licensing temr, and those terms are widely known and understood, then one could claim that they have contractual validity. Since copyright law is not widely known by those purchasing the goods, no reasonable attempt is made to educate them, and the terms of the agreement can be unilaterally altered by the guys writing the law, I do not see how one can conclude that a copyright notice somehow constitutes a contract in a moral sense.

You are arguing, I think, that the law states that that is, in effect a contract. I don't disagree with you. I am arguing about morality and not law. To me, there is a lack of consent. Walter Block inspires a thought experiment that might explain my position.

I invite you to come over to my house. The moment you are inside the house, I announce that by entering my property, you have consented to allowing me to beat you up. When you protest that you did no such thing, I point out that you walked by a sign to that effect as you came up the walkway.

To me, an agreement requires active consent between the parties. The law does not care about consent. It merely issues a proclamation and enforces it with threats of violence. To the enforcers of the law, ignorance is no excuse, walking by the sign is sufficient notice. I argue that it is not.

Again, I am not convinced.

BTW I sympathise about your keyboard. I am ready to throw my POS D-Link access point into the trash compactor. Had to reset it three times tonight. >(

|7.12.06 @ 2:15AM|#

tarran,

I believe that it was a reaction to the French Indian War. Essentially it was an actual case of a government being created specifically to force freeriders to pay for defensive services. Essentially, the Quakers refused to pay for and participate in defending against attacks by Indians fighting for the French. The non-Quaker members of the colony got tired of doing all the fighting and supported the English Crown in imposing a colonial government.

Yeah, I know all that already. You don't get to the point of my question: if having no government (and that is probably not the case - some government would have existed even sans that in Philadelphia because of the nature of local government in form of another throughout the colonies) was such a good deal, why didn't they stick with it?

Ahem, the UCC defines a the formation of a contact thus
"(1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.
(2) An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined.

(3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy."

The UCC's language makes it rather plain that an "instrument" one can "read" - your words - is not necessarily required (though it does go on to adopt the statue of frauds, it does so in a way as to limit its effect in many istances). Again, your concept of what makes up a contract comes from the 17th century.

Since copyright law is not widely known by those purchasing the goods...

People are well aware that copyrighted materials exist and that such materials come with limitations. It is part of the lay of the land so to speak. This stuff is in the popular press all the time and people are oft found bitching about the nature of copyright law because they would rather get copyrighted materials free instead of paying for them. It is also right there on the box and also contained in the very first frames of the video tape or the DVD (in the latter case before the menu page even opens up).

...no reasonable attempt is made to educate them...

Since when is this a requirement of a contracting party? What sort of strange paternalist ideas do you have about contract law? It is the buyer's duty to inform him or herself of the nature of the offer.

...and the terms of the agreement can be unilaterally altered by the guys writing the law...

It is within their constitutional powers to do so; and it seems to me that the Constitution is not flawed in this area.

I am arguing about morality and not law. To me, there is a lack of consent.

Poppycock. No one forced you to buy the DVD.

I invite you to come over to my house. The moment you are inside the house, I announce that by entering my property, you have consented to allowing me to beat you up. When you protest that you did no such thing, I point out that you walked by a sign to that effect as you came up the walkway.

The difference is that it is well known that copyright law exists and that there are penalities associated with breaking it and that those penalties are associated with things like unauthorized reproduction. Your analogy is completely inapt.

|7.12.06 @ 7:24AM|#

Companies have been doing this for years, with the studios blessing (or perhaps internally), for 'public' screenings - airplane movies being the obvious example, as well as "edited for broadcast TV". What distinguishes between the two?

|7.12.06 @ 8:05AM|#

Sigh,

You don't get to the point of my question: if having no government (and that is probably not the case - some government would have existed even sans that in Philadelphia because of the nature of local government in form of another throughout the colonies) was such a good deal, why didn't they stick with it?

I thought I made it clear, one group of people (nonQuakers) thought it would be beneficial to force another group (Quakers) to assist in defending the colony through taxes and conscription, and imposed it on the other.

...no reasonable attempt is made to educate them...
Since when is this a requirement of a contracting party? What sort of strange paternalist ideas do you have about contract law? It is the buyer's duty to inform him or herself of the nature of the offer.

My argument is that there are two things required for a person to take on an obligation: 1) Awareness of the obligation, 2)Assent to it.

My argument is that copyright law does not impose a valid contractual obligation because...

1) As a practical matter people are not made aware of the requirements. The widespread ignorance of what copyright actually means that people are ignorant of the terms of the agreement. Now, obviously this is not true 100% of the time. I know what the symbol means.

2) Far more importantly, the agreement can be unilaterally modified by a third party meaning that assent is impossible. This is the deal killer in my book. Thus, I could be in posession of a copy of Steamboat Willie purchased in 1940, when the copyright on the piece was set to expire sometime in the 1990's (I think). The third party known as the Congress of the United States announces that the copyright now extends for many more decades in the future. I did not agree to this longer period of encumbered ownership, yet I will face penalties if I follow the agreement in force when I originally purchased the copyrighted item.

I think you are arguing that when one purchases a copyrighted item, one is not only agreeing to abide by the terms of the copyright as it stands today, but also any changes made to it in the future by the United States Congress. Such a view would eliminate my 2nd concern, and leave us arguing back and forth as to what degree of education is enough. At some point a line has to be drawn delimiting what comprises effective communicaton of the terms of an agreement. Obviously if I were to sign some instrument that clearly stated "I won't do X", and I did it anyway because I actually didn't read what I signed and was ignorant of the terms, I should still be liable for the penalties associated with breaking that part of the deal. On the other hand I think the thought experiment you dismissed so derisively is also a valid one; Walking past a sign should not constitute an agreement to get beaten up (I suppose that it depends on the size of the sign).

|7.12.06 @ 8:25AM|#

tarran,

Sigh. *shakes head*

1) As a practical matter people are not made aware of the requirements. The widespread ignorance of what copyright actually means that people are ignorant of the terms of the agreement. Now, obviously this is not true 100% of the time. I know what the symbol means.

As a practical matter most people are well aware of what is going on when they buy copyrighted material. Based on this claim alone I should ignore anything else you write.

2) Far more importantly, the agreement can be unilaterally modified by a third party meaning that assent is impossible. This is the deal killer in my book. Thus, I could be in posession of a copy of Steamboat Willie purchased in 1940, when the copyright on the piece was set to expire sometime in the 1990's (I think). The third party known as the Congress of the United States announces that the copyright now extends for many more decades in the future. I did not agree to this longer period of encumbered ownership, yet I will face penalties if I follow the agreement in force when I originally purchased the copyrighted item.

Actually, contracts that allow for these sorts of changes are common in the business world, and they are common because they benefit both parties. Sports contracts come to mind for example. Can one honestly imagine a world that you would create, and the sorts of bizarro costs it would create for intellectual property owners?

At some point a line has to be drawn delimiting what comprises effective communicaton of the terms of an agreement.

Effective communication exists literally throughout our entire culture. We are literally inundated with statements about copyright.

|7.12.06 @ 8:32AM|#

MGort,

They apparently have the permission of the copyright holder.

Reason.com

New at Reason

R C Dean|7.11.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Timothy|7.11.06 @ 5:30PM|#

M. Simon|7.11.06 @ 5:37PM|#

Gene Berkman|7.11.06 @ 7:19PM|#

Warren|7.11.06 @ 7:39PM|#

Leave a Comment

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices: